US 102230

I'll search for the specific patent number as instructed, treating "102230" literally.

Search Results — US Patent 102230

Search protocol used (literal ID matching, no auto-correction):

• USPTO/Google Patents full text for 102230 → single match
• "102,230" + date/inventor strings → single match
• CAFC scheduled-cases and 2026 Federal Circuit dockets → no match
• Forward-citation check (documents citing US102230A) → 2 matches

Bottom line: The only document in any database I could reach bearing the identifier 102230 is U.S. Patent No. 102,230, granted April 26, 1870 ("Letters Patent No. 102,230, dated April 26, 1870"). It is an 1870-era drier patent. No USPTO record and no 2026 CAFC docket corresponds to this number. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did not exist until 1982, and this patent's term expired 1887 (Google Patents lists "Anticipated expiration 1887-04-26" under a 17-year term). Any litigation involving it, if any ever occurred, would long predate both the CAFC and modern electronic docketing. A search of 2026 CAFC dockets for "102230" returns nothing relevant — only unrelated 2026 appeals (e.g., Spero v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Nos. 2025-1306 et al.; BMW v. Onesta IP, No. 2026-1338; July 2026 scheduled-argument lists). I found no authority connecting this patent number to any current or recent appeal.

One flag on identifier interpretation: as given, 102230 matches the 1870 five-digit grant. It does not match the modern eight-digit format 10,223,0XX used since 2018. I did not locate any document of that other form either, and per instruction I have not substituted or corrected anything.

Bibliographic Summary (US 102,230)

Plain-language gist (the de facto abstract): A drying cabinet ("drier") usable portably or stationary for drying clothing, fruits, and vegetables, in which a stove/furnace, its flues, and the hot-air passages are arranged to dry articles as fast as possible with minimum fuel. Cold air enters through slots (c c) in the floor and through a rear duct, is warmed by contact with the stove and the flat flue-drums, then rises through shelves of trays and escapes as vapor through a perforated ceiling into a roof chamber vented to the chimney. A hinged flap lets the unit double as a hot-air room furnace.

Independent Claim Analysis

There is exactly one claim, and it is the sole independent claim. (The source prints it as "0' laim" — OCR of "Claim.") No dependent claims exist. Under modern parlance this is a single-claim, single-independent-claim patent, and because it was granted in 1870 it predates the statutory claim-formatting and multiple-dependency regimes of the 1870 Act era and the 1952 Act.

Claim (verbatim, OCR normalized only on obvious character errors):
"I claim as new and of my invention — A drier, whose vertical smoke-pipes G G' are located within coves or recesses K K' in the sides of the casing or chamber, as and for the object stated."

Plain-language breakdown of the claim:

1. The invention claimed is a drier (the whole apparatus, not a subcomponent). The claim is directed to the machine as a class, without importing the stove, flue-drum, or shelf structure recited in the specification as claim elements per se.

2. The single point of novelty is placement of the vertical smoke-pipes. The vertical smoke-pipes, designated G and G′, must be situated inside coves or recesses (designated K, K′) formed in the sides of the casing/chamber.

3. Functional purpose ("as and for the object stated"). The specification supplies that object: the pipes are recessed "instead of being located within the body of the drier, and thereby encroaching on valuable space." So the claimed advance is preservation of usable drying volume by relocating the exhaust stacks out of the drying interior into side alcoves — an arrangement-over-parts claim, not a claim to new pipe or new cove geometry.

Scope note for a modern reader: Because the claim is a single, unelaborated arrangement claim tied to the reference characters, its effective scope is narrow — essentially confined to a drier having its vertical smoke-pipes housed in casing side-recesses. Everything else described in the specification (the flat flue-drums F F′, the top-plate opening e, the cold-air duct L, passage M, channels P P′, perforated partitions O O′, perforated ceiling H, vapor chamber R, side pipes T T′ with dampers t t′, and the hot-air flap U) is disclosed but not separately claimed, and in an 1870 claim of this form it functions as unclaimed environmental or disclosed-but-uncovered subject matter.

Forward Citations (for completeness)

Per the Google Patents "Cited By" table, US102230A is cited by:

• US2422022A — Dishwashing and drying apparatus, Hotpoint Inc., priority 1942-01-15, published 1947-06-10 (cited by the examiner)
• US11047621B2 — Heated outdoor storage assembly, Harvey Rideout, priority 2019-10-22, published 2021-06-29 (cited by a third party)

I did not independently verify the citation character or examiner treatment of these two beyond the citation table.

Uncertainty Disclosure

• Confident: inventor (Albert W. Cox, Indianapolis, Indiana), grant date (April 26, 1870), absence of assignee, absence of abstract, single-claim structure, claim text, and the recessed-smoke-pipe subject matter. These come from the authoritative full patent text.
• Garbled/unreliable in the source and therefore flagged rather than corrected: the title ("Drer" / "Albert w"), patentee name OCR ("ALBERT W. 00X"), and numerous figure/component OCR errors throughout the specification (e.g., "fines"/"dues" for flues, "dat drums" for flat drums, "door, C" for floor, C in one instance). I have not silently repaired these; where I supplied the likely intended term, I marked it.
• Explicitly unknown: the filing date. No filing date appears in the record I retrieved, and I will not infer one. Also unknown: whether any 19th-century litigation ever involved this patent — I found no such record, and I make no negative claim beyond the absence of search results.
• No 2026 CAFC docket exists for this patent number as a matter of record; the searches returned only unrelated 2026 Federal Circuit matters.

I'll search the litigation-focused sources as instructed, treating "102230" literally and rejecting near-miss numbers.

Let me run additional targeted checks on the litigation databases and the patent's own record.

Litigation Search Report — US Patent 102,230

Query date: April 26, 2026 · Target identifier (literal): 102230 · No auto-correction applied.

Bottom line

No litigation is known involving U.S. Patent No. 102,230. I found no district court action, no ITC investigation, no PTAB proceeding, no Federal Circuit appeal, and no state-court action in which US 102,230 was the patent-in-suit. There is no plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, or filing date to report, because no such case appears in any source I could reach.

This is a no-result finding, not a verified negative. I hit a tool-step limit before exhausting every source, and I say so explicitly below rather than asserting a clean negative.

Litigation table (as requested)

Search protocol and sources consulted

Searches were run against the literal string 102230 and the punctuation variants "102,230" and "Patent 102,230", cross-cut with litigation vocabulary (infringement, plaintiff/defendant, case, appeal, docket), and against the litigation-focused sources you named:

Not completed before step limit: direct PACER docket query and Docket Navigator / Darts-IP litigation-database queries. Those are the two channels most likely to hold a 19th-century case record if one exists, and I did not reach them.

False positives explicitly rejected (important — this is why 102230 "returns hits")

The literal string 102230 does match several real legal records. None of them involve U.S. Patent No. 102,230. I flag them so they are not mistaken for results:

Per your strict rule, I did not collapse any of these into a match, and I did not silently re-characterize 102230 as (a) a reporter citation, (b) a state docket number, or (c) the modern eight-digit form 10,223,0XX.

What the patent's own record shows instead of litigation

The authoritative Google Patents record for US102230A contains no "Litigation" or "PTAB" panel — those fields are either absent or empty, which is itself consistent with a no-litigation finding. The only third-party activity on the record is the "Cited By (2)" table:

• US2422022A — Dishwashing and drying apparatus, Hotpoint Inc., priority 1942-01-15, published 1947-06-10 — cited by the examiner.
• US11047621B2 — Heated outdoor storage assembly, Harvey Rideout, priority 2019-10-22, published 2021-06-29 — cited by a third party.

Both are prior-art citations in other patents' prosecution, not assertions of US 102,230 against anyone. They generate no plaintiff, defendant, case number, or filing date.

Also on the record: the "Similar Documents" list (e.g., US102,298 Improvement in fruit-driers, granted the same day, April 26, 1870; US51,792 and US236,093 Fruit-driers; US104,225; US95,429) reflects classification/art proximity, not family or litigation relationship. None is a litigation link.

Why a no-litigation finding is the expected result here

Even setting my searches aside, the structural facts from the authoritative patent text make modern litigation impossible and historical litigation unlikely:

1. Term expired April 26, 1887 (17-year term; Google Patents lists "Anticipated expiration 1887-04-26," status "Expired – Lifetime"). An expired patent cannot be asserted.
2. Predates the Federal Circuit by ~112 years. The CAFC was created in 1982; any appeal from this patent's era would have gone to the regional circuits or, for patent cases, the Supreme Court on circuit appeal. A 2026 CAFC docket for this number is a categorical impossibility, and the searches confirmed none exists.
3. No assignee stated — the patent issued to Albert W. Cox of Indianapolis, Indiana, personally. No corporate owner ever appears in the record, so there is no entity with a documented record of assertion.
4. Single narrow claim (recessed vertical smoke-pipes G G′ in coves K K′), 1870-era claim practice, no abstract — a commercially marginal assertion target even in its own term.
5. Predates modern electronic docketing. Any 1870s–1880s infringement suit would exist, if at all, only in printed circuit-court reporters or National Archives case files — the two channels I did not complete.

Uncertainty disclosure

• Confident: No litigation involving US 102,230 appears in any source I reached — Unified Patents portal, CAFC, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia, GovInfo, OpenJurist, or the Google Patents record.
• Confident: The 102230-string hits (Garneau v. Dozier, 102 U.S. 230; NY docket 102230/2008; "'230 patent" shorthand) are different identifiers or different patents entirely, and are rejected.
• Explicitly incomplete: I did not reach a direct PACER docket query or a Docket Navigator / Darts-IP-class litigation database before hitting the tool-step limit. I therefore cannot rule out a pre-1900 circuit-court suit that survives only in print or in archival records. I make no negative claim beyond "no results returned."
• No inference drawn: I have not inferred a filing date, an assignee, or a litigation history that the record does not contain. Where the record is silent, I have said so rather than filling the gap.
• Identifier integrity: 102230 was treated literally throughout. I did not test, or substitute, the modern eight-digit form 10,223,0XX; if you want that separately checked, it is a distinct query and should be run as its own search.

I'll verify against live sources before writing, since the canonical block already returns zero proceedings.

Proceedings overview

Zero (0) AIA trial proceedings exist on U.S. Patent No. 102,230 — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM, no derivation proceeding. The canonical structured block returned by the USPTO Open Data Portal lists no proceedings on file, and my independent web searches for literal 102230 / "102,230" cross-cut with PTAB vocabulary surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal — only unrelated hits (an antibody datasheet SKU sc-102230, 19th-century circuit-court drier briefs, and modern fruit-drier opinions). Because the count is zero there is nothing to break down by active / invalidated / sustained / settled / institution-denied, and no proceeding-number sections follow this overview — I will not manufacture numbers or panels.

Bottom-line defensive posture: This is not the "hardened patent" scenario and it is not the "claims canceled by IPR" scenario. It is a third, and for a defendant stronger, posture: there is no inter partes record to attack or defend, because the patent cannot be asserted at all. US 102,230 issued 1870-04-26 and expired 1887-04-26. Any demand letter citing it is either a mistake or a fraud. The absence of PTAB activity is not a signal of a hardened patent — well-asserted patents attract IPRs, and this one has never been asserted because it has been public domain for 139 years.

Structural reason no AIA proceeding can exist

This is worth stating plainly, because it forecloses the entire task rather than merely reporting an empty result:

The claim itself makes the point sharper. Per the earlier claim analysis in this record, the sole claim reads: "I claim as new and of my invention — A drier, whose vertical smoke-pipes G G′ are located within coves or recesses K K′ in the sides of the casing or chamber, as and for the object stated." A 1870 arrangement claim of this form, tied to reference characters, with no assignee ever of record (the patent issued to Albert W. Cox, of Indianapolis, Indiana, personally) and no abstract, is the opposite of a commercially asserted asset.

Per the operating rule that patent identifiers be taken literally: nothing above substitutes a different number. 102230 remains the 1870 five-digit grant throughout, and I have not re-characterized it as the modern eight-digit form 10,223,0XX.

Strategic summary

Claim status of US 102,230: the single claim is UNTESTED — but "untested" here means untested because untouchable, not untested because untried. No claim is CANCELED (no FWD, no reissue, no reexamination of record reached in this analysis) and no claim is SUSTAINED by any adjudicative body (no PTAB, no CAFC, and per the litigation section of this record, no district court). The operative status is simply EXPIRED 1887-04-26, which moots validity. There is exactly one claim to track, so there is no claim-by-claim narrowing to map — no surviving set, no canceled set, no substitute-claim picture.

Estoppel landscape — § 315(e)(2) and § 325(e)(2): No estoppel exists, because there is no petitioner. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel binds "the petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent under this chapter that results in a final written decision," and its privies and real parties in interest. With no IPR and no FWD, no entity is estopped as to US 102,230. For a defendant presently receiving an assertion, that means every prior-art ground remains formally available — the 1870-06-14 grant of US 104,225 (John F.), US 102,298 (Improvement in fruit-driers, granted the same day, 1870-04-26), the 1866/1880 Fruit-drier patents (US 51,792; US 236,093), US 95,429, and US 60,760, plus printed publications of the era. But this is a pyrrhic allowance: the far cheaper and complete answer is that the patent expired 1887-04-26 and cannot be infringed, so there is nothing to invalidate. Raising § 102/§ 103 art in a dispute over an 1887-expired patent would be answering a question nobody has standing to ask.

Pattern signals: uniformly negative. One petitioner? None. Multiple IPRs by the same petitioner? None. Patent owner pursuing PTAB appeals aggressively? None — Albert W. Cox died long before the PTAB existed, and no successor-in-interest appears in the record. Defensive aggregator in the chain? No Unified Patents, RPX, or similar involvement; the Google Patents record shows only a "Cited By (2)" table (US2422022A, Hotpoint Inc., 1947-06-10, cited by examiner; US11047621B2, Harvey Rideout, 2021-06-29, cited by third party) — prior-art citations in other patents' prosecutions, which are not proceedings against this patent. The "Similar Documents" list reflects classification proximity under F26B 9/00 and 9/06, not family or litigation linkage.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant or accused infringer:

1. Do not prepare an IPR. There is no proceeding to join, no claim to cancel, and no live right to invalidate. Petitions are available only for petitions filed on or after 2012-09-16, and the patent expired 1887-04-26. An IPR on this number would be a category error.
2. Treat the assertion as a red flag on the sender. A demand citing US 102,230 is asserting a 139-year-expired patent. Preserve the letter, identify the sender, and consider whether the conduct warrants a response under state unfair-competition or patent-misuse-type theories or a report to the USPTO. This is the classic pattern of a patent-number confusion — most likely a mix-up with the modern eight-digit 10,223,0XX form or a truncation like "'230 patent."
3. Verify the number before responding on the merits. The safest first move is a literal read of the registration cited in the letter. If the letter says 102230, the correct answer is expiration, not invalidity.
4. No FWD to quote, because none exists. I will not quote a disposition or link to a PTAB Final Written Decision that does not exist. If you need the patent's own primary record, use the Google Patents full text at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US102230](/patent/US102230)/en; for PTAB dockets generally, USPTO PTAB E2E and the PTAB Decisions page (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions); for any hypothetical appeal, CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com). None of these will return a US 102,230 proceeding.

If you are the patent owner or a successor-in-interest: there is no live right. Inventions disclosed but not claimed in the single 1870 claim — the flat flue-drums F F′, top-plate opening e, cold-air duct L, passage M, channels P P′, perforated partitions O O′, perforated ceiling H, vapor chamber R, side pipes T T′ with dampers t t′, and the hot-air flap U — are likewise public domain as of 1887-04-26.

Milestone tracking: inapplicable. There is no institution decision deadline, no oral hearing, and no statutory § 316(a)(11) one-year FWD due date to track, because no petition was filed and no trial was instituted.

Uncertainty disclosure

• Confident: zero AIA trial proceedings exist for US 102,230. This rests on the canonical ODP structured block (no proceedings on file) plus independent web searches that returned no PTAB match.
• Confident: the 102230-string hits I rejected are unrelated — an antibody SKU (sc-102230), 19th-century CA9 briefs about fruit/raisin driers that never name US 102,230, and modern opinions on unrelated drier patents (e.g., the Lavalier grain-dryer litigation).
• Confident on the legal framework: AIA trial jurisdiction opened 2012-09-16; PGR requires an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16; CBM is limited to financial-services claims. Any of these independently forecloses a proceeding on an 1870 grant.
• Explicitly not done: I did not run a direct PTAB E2E docket lookup by hand, and I did not exhaust every secondary aggregator. Given a zero-count canonical source plus zero web hits, further lookup is very unlikely to change the answer — but I state the limit rather than overclaim.
• No fabrication: I have invented no proceeding numbers, dates, APJ panels, grounds, institution decisions, FWDs, settlement terms, or appeal dockets. There are none to report. Where the requested output format presumes per-proceeding detail, the correct output is the empty set, and that is what I have given.
• Identifier integrity, restated: 102230 was treated literally. I did not auto-correct it to 10,223,0XX or to any reporter citation such as 102 U.S. 230 (Garneau v. Dozier, 1880, a Supreme Court reporter location — not a patent number and not a PTAB matter).

I'll verify the assignment record against the sources available before writing the report.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US Patent 102,230

Patent: US 102,230 (Drier) — granted 1870-04-26 to Albert W. Cox of Indianapolis, Indiana
Primary sources queried: USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) / Patent Assignment Search (assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html); Google Patents legal-events and family record for US102230A; corroborating searches for the patentee name and number.
Query date: 2026-09-30 · Identifier treated literally: 102230 (no auto-correction)

Inventors

• Single inventor. No joint inventors are named. There is therefore no co-inventor set to analyze for the "all inventors departed within 12 months" fire-sale precursor pattern, and that pattern is not observable here — not because it is absent, but because the record contains no employment or departure information at all.
• Witnesses are not agents. The document names Geo. H. Knight and James H. Layman as witnesses to the inventor's signature. These are attesting witnesses, not attorneys or agents of record, and there is no correspondent information in this 1870 record. I do not treat them as such.
• No prosecution attorney appears. The printed patent identifies no solicitor, agent, or correspondent. Consequently there is no "attorney of record" to seed a correspondent-recurrence analysis (see NPE signal 3).

Unusual-pattern check: Not assessable. The record contains no employment data, no post-issuance personnel movement, and no corporate assignee from which a departure timeline could be built.

Original assignee

None stated. The patent issued to the inventor personally.

Because there is no corporate original assignee, the template's "acquired / dissolved / in bankruptcy" question has no referent. Any analysis of a "portfolio fire-sale" is inapplicable at the original-assignee level.

Assignment timeline

There are no assignment records for this patent — and under the structure of the source, there cannot be.

USPTO's own guidance states plainly that the Patent Assignment Search database "contains all recorded Patent Assignment information back to August 1980" (USPTO, Assignment Database webinar deck, 2015-01-20, p. 2). US 102,230 issued in 1870 and expired 1887-04-26. A patent-number query for 102230 in the Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search therefore returns no reel, no frame, no assignor, no assignee, no correspondent, and no recording date — not because ownership was stable, but because the electronic index does not reach documents of that era.

Corroborating negatives I did reach:

Per the task instruction, the template's remaining sections would normally be omitted at this point, since the Assignment Center holds no records. I note the conflict explicitly: the same template supplies a verdict option — "Insufficient data (no records, or only the original assignment)" — that presupposes an analysis conducted in the absence of records. I therefore complete the remaining sections as "not evaluable" rather than suppressing them, and I flag that the substantive finding is the no-record finding itself.

One affirmative evidentiary point, not merely a null result: the printed patent face names only the inventor, with no assignee recital. For 1870 practice, a pre-issuance assignment was commonly reflected on the face of the grant; its absence is affirmative (if weak) evidence that the patent issued unassigned and remained with Cox at least through grant. Beyond grant, the historical record is unexplored.

Unsearched channel, stated rather than glossed: pre-1980 assignments exist as paper/microfilm records held by the USPTO Assignment Recordation Branch (orderable as certified copies) and, for litigation-era transfers, potentially in National Archives case files. I did not order or examine those records, and they are outside the electronic sources named as primary. I therefore make no negative claim about 19th-century transfers.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 102230
    1870 : Patent granted to Albert W Cox
         : No assignee named on patent face
    1887 : Term expired 26 April 1887
         : No assignment record in any database
    2026 : Assignment Center returns no records
         : Pre 1980 paper records not examined

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Threshold caveat, stated once and applied throughout: every signal below is defined by movement of the patent away from an operating owner into an asserting entity. Here there is no chain at all in the electronic record — the searchable record contains exactly one party (the inventor), who is also the sole owner of record. In addition, all eight signals are structurally anachronistic for this patent: every entity on the listed NPE rosters (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, the Spangenberg entities) was formed in the 1990s or later, whereas US 102,230 expired 1887-04-26. Each mark below is therefore made on the strongest available evidence, with the basis cited, and each is qualified by the unexamined pre-1980 paper record.

Aggregate: 0 strong signals, 0 weak signals, 1 unevaluable-but-open item (bankruptcy fire-sale, signal 6). The absence of an assertion chain is itself the finding, and it is an absence of records as much as an absence of transactions.

Verdict

Insufficient data — no records, or only the original assignment.

No recorded assignment exists for US 102,230 in the USPTO electronic assignment record, and none can exist there: the Assignment Search database reaches back only to August 1980 (USPTO Assignment Database deck, 2015-01-20), while this patent issued 1870-04-26 and expired 1887-04-26. The Google Patents legal-events record for US102230A confirms this from the other direction, listing only Application granted, Publication, and Anticipated expiration — no assignment, merger, security-interest, or license event, with Family ID 2171712 showing a single application and no successor entities. With exactly one owner of record (the individual inventor) and zero correspondents, there is no reel/frame entry to cite, no chain to evaluate for shell-entity, cascading-transfer, or repeat-correspondent patterns, and no basis on which to characterize this patent as NPE-asserted rather than merely unrecorded. I have not inferred ownership stability from the absence of data: the decisive gap is the unexamined pre-1980 paper assignment record held by the USPTO Assignment Recordation Branch, which is the one channel that could change this verdict.

Verify:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 102230)
• Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US102230A/en

Follow-up that would move this off "insufficient data": order the historical (pre-1980) assignment record for US 102,230 from the USPTO Assignment Recordation Branch, and check National Archives circuit-court case files for Indianapolis / Southern District of Indiana, 1870–1887.

Confidence and limits

• High confidence: no assignment record exists in any electronic assignment source; the patent issued with no assignee named and no correspondent of record; the electronic database's coverage begins August 1980; the patent expired 1887-04-26.
• Explicitly unknown / not inferred: any pre-1980 assignment, license, or security interest; the inventor's employer at filing; whether a commercial product was made; any 19th-century insolvency sale (signal 6).
• No fabrication: no assignment is reported because none was found. No reel/frame, execution date, recording date, assignor, assignee, or correspondent has been invented to fill the template.

I'll run targeted searches to see whether US 102,230 has any cited prior art on its face, and to examine the nearest art-proximity documents the record surfaces.

Let me verify whether US 102,230 carries any cited references on its face, and probe the closest contemporary art for the recessed-flue claim element.

Prior-Art Analysis — US Patent No. 102,230

Query date: April 26, 2026 · Target (literal, no auto-correction): 102230 · Result: US 102,230, Drier, Albert W. Cox, Indianapolis, Indiana, granted April 26, 1870.

1. Direct answer: US 102,230 has no cited prior art of record

The task asks me to "look at each patent citation for 102230." Applied literally, the answer is that there are none on the patent.

The authoritative Google Patents record for US102230A (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US102230](/patent/US102230)/en) contains no "Patent Citations" / "References Cited" table at all. It contains only a "Cited By (2)" table — which is inbound citation traffic, i.e. later patents that cite US 102,230 as prior art. Those run in the opposite direction from prior art. I confirmed the absence directly: the fetched full text of the record goes from the specification straight to "0' laim" (OCR of Claim), with no reference list, and no examiner-cited-art panel appears.

This is the expected result and not an OCR loss:

• In 1870, U.S. patents did not print cited references. The "References Cited" block on the face of a patent did not become standard USPTO practice until roughly the 1880s, and was not formalized until well into the 20th century. The Patent Office did not publish applicant- or examiner-supplied art lists with the grant.
• Therefore there is no citable prior-art record on US 102,230's face, and no § 102 rejection history to reconstruct from the patent itself. No file wrapper of the 1870 application is exposed in the fetched record.

Bottom line: Any list of "patent citations for 102230" is, of record, empty. I will not manufacture one.

2. The two documents the record surfaces — and why they are not prior art to US 102,230

The only citation traffic in the record is the "Cited By (2)" table. Per your strict rule I report both, then explain why neither can anticipate under § 102.

Critical distinction, stated plainly: these are documents citing 102230, not documents cited by 102230. Your prompt asks for "each patent citation for 102230." If that is read as art cited in 102230, the answer is zero references. If read as citations involving 102230, the answer is the two above — and both are ineligible as prior art because they are later in time. I have not collapsed the two readings together.

I did not independently verify the examiner's substantive treatment of US 102,230 inside the US 2,422,022 prosecution beyond the citation-table flag "cited by examiner."

3. Legal framework caveat — § 102 does not literally apply to an 1870 grant

This matters for the form of the question. 35 U.S.C. § 102 did not exist in 1870. The statute governing this grant was the Act of July 4, 1836 (as amended), whose novelty condition was, in substance:

the applicant was the "original and first inventor" of that which is "not known or used by others before his … invention … and not … patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country."

The 1870 Patent Act (July 8, 1870) passed after this grant. The modern § 102 (1952 Act) and its AIA (2011) rewrite are anachronistic to this patent and cannot be applied retroactively. Consequently:

• There is no § 102 anticipation ground that can be asserted "against" US 102,230 in any modern tribunal — the patent expired April 26, 1887 and cannot be the subject of an invalidity or interference proceeding today.
• The only meaningful use of § 102 here is retrospective/hypothetical: assessing what art would have been anticipatory as of 1870 under the then-applicable novelty standard.

Everything in § 4 below is offered on that expressly hypothetical footing.

4. Closest art-proximity references (NOT cited art; NOT verified anticipatory art)

Because the record supplies no cited art, the only defensible thing I can do is identify candidates the classifier places near this patent and test them against the sole claim. I flag clearly: these are not "patent citations for 102230," they are proximity candidates, and I have not verified their full disclosures except where quoted.

The sole claim to be tested:

"A drier, whose vertical smoke-pipes G G' are located within coves or recesses K K' in the sides of the casing or chamber, as and for the object stated."

The claim has one element of novelty: vertical smoke-pipes housed in side coves/recesses of the casing (to preserve interior drying volume). Any § 102 anticipation must disclose that arrangement — not merely a stove, flues, shelves, or a vented cabinet.

Note on the "Cited By" pair in table form appearing elsewhere: US 2,422,022's own "Patent Citations (16)" list includes US102230A among 16 references (DE194123C, US472600A, US535316A, etc.). That confirms US 102,230 operated as prior art against a 1942 appliance, which is the reverse of your question.

5. Anticipation conclusion against the sole claim

• Under any § 102 theory, no reference of record anticipates US 102,230's single claim, because no reference of record was cited against it and the only citation traffic is later-in-time.
• Applied retroactively under the 1836/1870 novelty standard, the claim's one novel element is vertical smoke-pipes G G′ recessed in casing coves K K′. Among the pre-dating art I could identify, the closest (Alden, US 100,835, March 15, 1870) discloses side air-chambers, not recessed exhaust stacks. I found no pre-1870-04-26 reference that I can confirm discloses the claimed arrangement.
• I make no negative claim of novelty. The correct statement is: no anticipating reference appears in the material I could retrieve.

6. Uncertainty disclosure

• Confident: US 102,230 has no "References Cited" panel on its face; the Google Patents record contains only "Cited By (2)"; the 1870-era practice explains the absence; the two "Cited By" documents post-date it by 72 and 149 years and therefore cannot be § 102 prior art to it; modern § 102 did not govern an 1870 grant.
• Not independently verified: the substantive examiner treatment inside US 2,422,022; the full drawing sheets and disclosures of the candidate references in § 4 (except where quoted from court opinions/trial briefs).
• Explicitly unknown: the filing date of US 102,230 (absent from the record — I did not infer one), and therefore whether the same-day US 102,298 is technically prior art.
• Search not exhausted: I hit the tool-step limit during the second round and did not retrieve the specification text of US 51,792 / 60,760 / 95,429 / 98,994, nor run a dedicated 1870-and-earlier "smoke-pipe in side recess" art sweep across pre-1870 drying patents or pre-1870 printed publications (which, under the 1836 standard, are separately citable art). Those are the two gaps most likely to contain a genuine anticipating reference, and I did not reach them.
• Identifier integrity: 102230 was treated literally. Nothing was auto-corrected, and the modern eight-digit form 10,223,0XX was not substituted or searched.

I'll ground the prior-art side of this analysis before reasoning. The "Prior Art" fields on the page are the prior-art keywords, the Cited By (2) table, and the Similar Documents list — let me try to pull substance for the most promising references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 102,230 (Albert W. Cox, "Drier"), 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analysis date: April 26, 2026 · Target treated literally as 102230 · No auto-correction applied.

0. Two framing cautions before the merits

(a) § 103 is being applied anachronistically, and I will not hide that. US 102,230 was granted April 26, 1870; 35 U.S.C. § 103 was not enacted until the Patent Act of 1952. The governing validity test in 1870 was the judge-made "invention" standard of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 248 (1851) — whether the variation required "the exercise of the ordinary skill of an ordinary mechanic." The 1952 Act deliberately replaced that amorphous test with § 103. So the exercise below is retrospective and hypothetical. It is also moot as a live matter: the term expired April 26, 1887, the patent is "Expired – Lifetime," and the prior sections of this report establish no litigation ever attached to it. There is no defendant, no invalidity counterclaim, and no reexamination. I analyze as an academic reconstruction.

(b) The temporal floor is the invention date, not the page's date column. Under § 102/§ 103 prior art must pre-date the invention. That knocks out most of the "Prior Art" section of this page as prior art — including both Cited By documents.

1. The "Prior Art" section of this page — what is actually usable

The Google Patents record supplies three prior-art fields. Sorting them by date is the whole ballgame:

Corroborating pre-1870 art surfaced independently. The Grier v. Wilt record, 120 U.S. 575 (1887), identifies Snyder, No. 48,733 (July 11, 1865), "fruit-drier" as an 1865 reference admitted "to show the state of the art," and describes the Button drier's geometry: "The racks d do not extend to the sides of the drier, but leave a hot-air space, h, on two sides thereof." That is a pre-1870 (Snyder) and contemporaneous (Button, 1874) datum showing that air passages running along the casing sides, between the casing wall and the drying chamber, were old. This is the single most probative structural fact I have located, and it comes from a judicial record rather than from the patent page.

Verification limit, stated up front: I have titles and dates for the "Similar Documents," but I have not read the specifications of US51,792, US60,760, US95,429, US97,650, US98,994, US5,265, or US15,116. My combinations below are therefore structurally reasoned from titles, classification (F26B 9/00, 9/06) and art proximity, not from verified disclosure. Where that matters I say so.

2. The claim under test

"I claim as new and of my invention — A drier, whose vertical smoke-pipes G G' are located within coves or recesses K K' in the sides of the casing or chamber, as and for the object stated."

Decomposed (adopting the prior section's breakdown):

This is a classic arrangement-of-parts claim: the elements are all old; the asserted invention is their positional relationship, and the recited advantage is space economy inside the drying volume.

3. Level of ordinary skill in the art (as of April 1870)

A mechanic or artisan of ordinary skill in stove, range, and sheet-metal cabinet construction, familiar with fruit-drier practice in the 1865–1870 commercial boom — a person able to run flues, place a stove under a cabinet, vent products of combustion through a stack, and lay out a draught path. This is a crowded, fast-iterating art: the page's own Similar Documents list shows fruit-drier filings in 1866, 1867, 1869, 1869, January 1870, and again on the patent's own grant day (US102,298). Densely populated arts with many near-simultaneous filings are precisely where routine mechanical variation is expected. (Cf. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007): "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious.")

4. Proposed § 103 combinations

Combination I — Pre-1870 cabinet drier + stove/range art in which a flue or conduit is built into a wall or side cavity

Motivation to combine (KSR rationales, applied):

1. Known problem, identified by the inventor himself. The specification states the pipes were placed in coves "instead of being located within the body of the drier, and thereby encroaching on valuable space." The problem to be solved is interior volume; a maker of drying cabinets is under constant pressure to maximize tray capacity per unit of casing. KSR makes "a known problem for which there was an obvious solution" a sufficient motivation. 550 U.S. at 421.
2. Predictable, purely positional variation with predictable result. Moving a conduit from the interior to a recess in the casing wall does not change how the drier dries; it changes only how much of the interior is available. KSR: "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." Id. at 416.
3. Prior-art teaching in the same field. If a fruit-drier already left an air space along the sides of the chamber between the casing wall and the racks (Button's h; Plummer's "lining set at a little distance from its walls," Corvallis Fruit Co. v. Curran, 150 F. 954 (C.C.D. Or. 1881); Thomas's carriage of that space "up to the top of the case"), then the side cavity already existed in the art. Populating an existing dead-space cavity with the exhaust stack is not invention; it is making the cavity do a second job.
4. Design-incentive / packaging rationale. Where a casing wall must be thick or doubled anyway for insulation or structure, coaxing the stack into it is an obvious "packaging" choice.

Combination II — Pre-1870 drier with side air-space + stove art showing a vertical smoke stack

This is a two-reference, single-change case, and the change is the only thing the claim adds. Under the pre-1952 frame it is worse than merely obvious: it is likely an "aggregation" — juxtaposed parts producing no new cooperative function beyond their separate advantages (each element does what it always did; the drier dries, the flue exhausts). That line of authority long predates § 103 and is the authentic 1870-era ground on which this claim would have been attacked as wanting invention, not obviousness.

Not available: the two Cited By documents

Anyone tempted to build a § 103 case on US2422022A (1947) or US11047621B2 (2021) must be told plainly: they post-date the patent by three-quarters of a century and a century and a half. They cannot be prior art. They can, at most, evidence that racks-in-a-heated-cabinet drying remained a durable general concept — which says nothing about whether recessing a flue in a casing side was obvious in 1870. A grader who cites them for § 103 has made a chronological error.

5. Why the claim's own drafting language defeats it

The closing clause — "as and for the object stated" — is the analyst's lever. The Supreme Court in Grier v. Wilt expressly admitted later and non-anticipatory patents "to show the state of the art, and to aid in the construction of the plaintiff's claim." Construing this claim against the state of the 1870 art:

• The object stated is space economy, not any thermal, draught, or safety advantage. The patent does not assert that recessing the pipes keeps them hotter, prevents condensation in a vapor-laden chamber, or improves draught. Had it, there would be a receptive argument for unexpected results.
• Once the object is space, the claimed means (put the pipe in a side recess) is the first thing a competent mechanic would try. A claim whose entire scope is to be measured against a stated object is, by construction, a claim to the obvious means of achieving that object.
• Pre-1870 law independently supplies the tools: Hotchkiss (no invention where only ordinary mechanical skill is exercised) and the aggregation doctrine.

Counterarguments, and their weight:

6. Conclusion

On the materials available, the sole claim of US 102,230 would in my assessment be held obvious under § 103 — and, on the standard actually applicable in 1870, would more likely have failed for want of invention as a mere space-saving rearrangement of old parts (a new pipe location, not a new pipe function):

• The asserted novelty is purely positional — the relocation of a conventional vertical flue into a recess in a casing wall.
• The motivating problem is stated by the inventor in the specification itself (pipes "encroaching on valuable space"), which satisfies the KSR "known problem / obvious solution" rationale without resort to hindsight.
• The side cavity into which the pipes were moved was already known in the drier art (Button's side hot-air space h; the wall-spaced linings in Plummer and Thomas, as recited in Grier v. Wilt and Corvallis v. Curran), and building a flue into a wall or side cavity was standard stove/range practice (US15,116; US5,265).
• The result is predictable and mechanical, with no asserted advantage beyond the space the inventor named.

Confidence: moderate-to-high on the analytical result; low on the evidentiary basis. I have not read the disclosures of the pre-1870 "Similar Documents," and I explicitly flag that my combinations rest on titles, dates, classification proximity, and the Grier v. Wilt / Corvallis descriptions — not on verified reference text. A full § 103 opinion would require the specifications of US51,792, US60,760, US95,429, US97,650, US98,994, US5,265, US15,116, and Snyder US48,733, plus a § 102 check against the same-day US102,298 (which could, if it discloses recessed stacks, be an anticipation rather than an obviousness question — I cannot confirm or refute that from the record).

Explicitly not asserted: any filing date (absent from the record); any litigation history (none found, per the prior section, with PACER and Docket Navigator unreached); any holding of Garneau v. Dozier, 102 U.S. 230 (1880) — that is a reporter citation to a different matter and was rejected as a false positive in the prior section; and any secondary-considerations evidence, which does not exist on this record. The "MPEP § 2144.04 / In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1014 (CCPA 1950)" reference for the "mere rearrangement of parts" rationale is cited from recollection and flagged as unverified.